Roberto Bolaño

for me too, i agree with you, the paragraph relating to storytelling in particular, since it alludes to which imaginative/creative "stocks" might be permitted..

reading the Chandra article
prompts me to say
how much I disapprove of critics and anyone else
who thinks to tell writers what they should write about;
what they should in- or ex-clude
what words are permissible and what not

really THE NERVE!!!!

I don't know about the articles being part of different debates. I actually think there is some crossover. Of course Khair is right that authors like Rushdie etc. (and Vikram Chandra would definitely be included himself here) are more palatable to a Western audience than, say, Mahasweta Devi or other writers in regional languages. But Khair, despite some disavowals about the excellence of Rushdie etc., is playing the same role as Meenakshi Mukherjee in Chandra's essay in essentially disparaging those authors for not being 'authentic' enough.

I don't think Chandra's point is a small one, and I do think he touches on the Western reception element that Khair raises when he defends himself against the accusation that he has crafted his work precisely for the consumption of Western audiences. I know that he's discussing this from a writer's perspective, as you observe, but I think it's relevant to Khair's point about reception because Khair implies that there is something inauthentic or inappropriate about Chandra or Rushdie being read as Indian writers. I think that Sacred Games is interesting in this respect, with its large number of untranslated words and local references that could hardly be described as pandering to a Western audience.

This is diverging from Bolaño a bit, but I do think the argument is an interesting one, and there could be some parallels with the marketing of South American authors and the marketing of Indian authors to Western audiences. And Chandra's points about cosmopolitanism could apply to Bolaño as well.

I don't know about the articles being part of different debates. I actually think there is some crossover. Of course Khair is right that authors like Rushdie etc. (and Vikram Chandra would definitely be included himself here) are more palatable to a Western audience than, say, Mahasweta Devi or other writers in regional languages. But Khair, despite some disavowals about the excellence of Rushdie etc., is playing the same role as Meenakshi Mukherjee in Chandra's essay in essentially disparaging those authors for not being 'authentic' enough.

I don't think Chandra's point is a small one, and I do think he touches on the Western reception element that Khair raises when he defends himself against the accusation that he has crafted his work precisely for the consumption of Western audiences. I know that he's discussing this from a writer's perspective, as you observe, but I think it's relevant to Khair's point about reception because Khair implies that there is something inauthentic or inappropriate about Chandra or Rushdie being read as Indian writers. I think that Sacred Games is interesting in this respect, with its large number of untranslated words and local references that could hardly be described as pandering to a Western audience.

This is diverging from Bolaño a bit, but I do think the argument is an interesting one, and there could be some parallels with the marketing of South American authors and the marketing of Indian authors to Western audiences. And Chandra's points about cosmopolitanism could apply to Bolaño as well.

what you're saying is really interesting, i'm still not sure i agree, but I have a question arising out of your observatiion, which takes me back to Fausto's original observation/qualification of the Moya article. I think i still think that however much authors may or may not choose to participate in the fostering of public images etc etc, that this doesn't mean that we shouldn't look or think about the things Fausto (in this instance in respect of Bolano) was talking about..and i know you're not for a minute saying that, Funhouse, i'm just asking the question. Plenty of people play with and utilize the stereotypes, structural prejudices that surround them, sometimes in order to subvert, to gain entry, or to gain entry in order to subvert. the fact that they choose to do so, doesnt amount to saying, or making room for an abdication, "well it's all play and marketing anyway, so what's your point?" because play, or Voltaire's wit, or whatever, will at some point meet with truths as lived by others say, that it can't handle and will very soon exhaust it

This post has been edited by oneofmurphysbiscuits on Sep 27 2009, 09:57 AM

What a load of BS this whole camels-in-the-Koran thing.

ETC, ETC, ETC


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/kora...&size=First+100

Bresson-like in Bolano's prose:

-- The Skating Rink

What a load of BS this whole camels-in-the-Koran thing.

ETC, ETC, ETC


http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/kora...&size=First+100

but.. borges made it sound fantastic.. i dunno

Yeah, I liked the idea too. That is why my disappointment was so bitter.

bored to death sets up a fight plot-point between the writer and critic like in TSD...

Guernica supplies Englishing of that Castellanos Moya thang

What is the fault of the commentator is the broad brush applied to American readers and projection on what they want.

The Futur of Laitn American Fiction
http://www.rochester.edu/College/translati...dex.php?id=2324

http://papercuts.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11...lano/#more-6425